LexNOOR@ NOORDHIN versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A NOOR@ NOORDHIN -..r -~ v. STATEOFKARNATAKA MAY 11,2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860-ss. 324 and 34-Death caused of one person-By ~ several accused including appellant-accused-Evidence of eye-witnesses c revealing that deceased was chased and assaulted by all the accused- Specific role played by the appellant not disclosed-Trial Court acquitting other accused persons in view of absence of their names in FIR and convicting the appellant u/ss 143, 148, 341, 326 and 302 rlw 149 /PC-In appeal against conviction, conviction of appellant only u!s 324 rlw s. 34 and 304 part I rlw s.34-0n appeal, held: Appellant is guilty only u/s 324 and not D u/s 304, Part I rlw s.34-Appellant cannot be said to have common intention with the other accused-Hence s.34 would not be attracted Appellant-accused alongwith other accused persons were charged u/ss >- 143, 148, 341, 326, 302, 1208 r/w s.149 IPC for causing death of one person. --- E Prosecution case was that when the deceased and PW-4 (an injured eye- witness) were going on a motorcycle., they were stopped by the accused persons. Appellant attacked the deceased. While warding off the attack, PW 4 got inured. When the deceased tried to escape, all the accused chased him and assaulted him. Statement of PW-4 was treated as FIR. In FIR 4 accused including the appellant-accused had been named. But in his deposition PW- F 4 stated that the names of the accused other than the appellant, were taken wrongly. During trial PW-4 (first informant) and PW-5 (eye witness) proved the prosecution case only to the extent of FIR. Trial Court convicted the y ..,_ appellant-accused u/ss 143, 148, 341, 326, 302 r/w s.149 IPC' and acquitted the other accused on the ground that out of the seven accused, apart from the appellant, nobody was named in the FIR. State did not prefer any appeal against G acquittal. In appeal against conviction, High Court acquitted the appellant u/s 143, 148 and 341 and convicted him u/s 324 r/w s.34 IPC and also under s. 304, Part I r/w s. 34 IPC. Hence the present cross appeals. Partly allowing the appeal of the accused and dismissing that of the H State, the Court 400 '<y I ., .(__ - -'i' ,. NOOR@NOORDHIN 1·. ST A TE OF KARNATAKA 401 HELD: 1. Appellant cannot be held to be guilty of commission of an A offence under Section 304, Part I read with Section 34 IPC. His conviction can be upheld only under Section 324 IPC. (Para 19( (408-D-E( Harshadsingh fqhelvansingh Thakore v. Slate of Gujarat, (1976) 4 SCC 640; Golla Pullanna and Anr. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 223; State of U.P. v. Jhinkoo Nai. (2001 ( 6 SCC 503, distinguished B Baul and Anr. v. The SJa/e of U.P .. ( 1968) 2 SCR 450 and Sukhram s!o Ramralan v. State of M.P., 1989 Supp 1 SCC 214, relied on 2. A common intention may be developed on the spot. Although a person may not be held guilty for having a common object, in a given situation, he c may be held guilty for having a common intention, but such common intention must be shared with others. The recital made in the first information report clearly goes to show that the appellant had sought to attack the deceased while he was on his motorcycle. The attack was warded off by PW-4. He suffered an injury. The deceased thereafter ran to the school building which according D to the sketch map drawn by the investigating officer was at a distance of about 120 feet from the main road. The dead body of the deceased was found only on the stair case of the school The first information report as also the evidence . of PWs 4 and 5 reveals that the deceased was chased by all the accused. He was assaulted by all the accused. The specific role played by the appellant has not been disclosed. Whether the appellant alone was responsible for E causing the death has also not been stated. (Para 13] (405-G-H; 406-A-B( 3. The deceased suffered as many as 19 injuries. Some injuries were inflicted on vital parts of the body and some were only on the hands and legs. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant inflicted any injury on F a vital part of the body of the deceased. In the aforementioned situation, Section 34IPC would not be attracted. (Para 14) [406-C) 4. The very fact that the appellants have been convicted only under Section 304 Part I IPC, itself suggests that they had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased and, thus, the question of common intention
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.